1.
Evaluation for Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development
A Proposal Submitted to Far West Laboratory
By
Desert Educational Associates
Introduction
In July of 2011, the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development (FWL) issued a request for proposal (RFP) for the evaluation of
determining instructional purpose (DIP). This document is a proposal from Desert
Educational Associates of High Desert, Utah submitted in response to the Far West
Laboratory RFP.
Far West Laboratory
Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development has two
purposes for this request. The primary concern is to provide information and
recommendations for use in making decisions regarding dissemination of the units. The
secondary purpose is to provide use of information that is useful to the school
administrators in making decision about purchase and use of the units.
FWL has an overall goal to determine whether or not funding should go forward
on marketing and creating the DIP training program package. This is to assure FWL that
the DIP has marketability and funding should be put in place. The DIP is training
program intended for school administrators and graduate students, and developed by
FWL.
The DIP contains a coordinators handbook, and three training units. Unit 1 is
Setting Goals, Unit 2 is Analyzing Problems, and Unit 3 is Deriving Objectives. Each of
the units contains four to six modules that provide training on a limited number of
instructions.

2. Evaluation Method
The initial meeting will include members of the evaluating team, FWL board of
directors, lead administrators and lead coordinators. The meeting will have the purpose
of identifying three questions that can provide key information to fully conduct a
formative and summative evaluation of the DIP.
The group was able to come up with the following questions and sub-questions
for evaluating the DIP.
1. Do unit coordinators receive adequate training?
a. To implement a program in a school or district?
b. To train faculty of staff in a district or school?
c. To be able to support a school or district if additional units are required?
2. How effectively do schools support the implementation of project goals?
a. Are the teachers receiving instructional development that supports the use
of the unit in the classroom?
b. Are administrators receiving instructional development to assist with
monitoring the units in use?
c. Is the tech support for the district or school receiving training in use and
problem solving abilities for assisting the unit coordinators?
3. Does the new technology in the form of DIP units support the funding necessary?
a. What kind of cost is involved for additional units?
b. What is the replacement cost?
c. When the technology goes out of date will support be provided for
updating the units to meet the newer technology demands?
i. What kinds of cost are expected with updating the units?
The questions will be answered in varies ways by faculty, administrators,
coordinators, and tech support at the schools and district office. They are to be conducted
through the process of using surveys sent out through email, questionnaires, interviews
and observations.
Task Schedule
The task schedule is located on page three of the proposal and assumes a start date
of July 25, 2011. The completion date scheduled for March 25, 2011.
Project Personnel
Desert Educational Associates has specialized in the development and evaluation
of educational programs for 25 years. Our resume includes school districts of more then
200,000 students and as few as 3,500 students. We pride ourselves on the ability to
conduct a complete and comprehensive evaluation that allows our clients to succeed in
accomplishing their goals.

3. Task Schedule
Evaluation of Far West Laboratory
Task Agency Deadline
Responsible Date
1. Meeting with primary individuals listed DEA July 25, 2011
in cover page.
2. Submit all date collection plans and DEA August 10
instruments intended to be used. This
includes survey, interview and
questionnaires.
3. Provide ETA on feedback for data DEA August 30
collected in phases in order of protocol.
4. Revise data collection if necessary to DEA Sept. 10
assure adequate responses.
5. Collect all remaining data surveys, DEA Dec. 5
interviews, and questionnaires’.
6. Summarize data in all phases and meet DEA Jan. 25, 2012
with FWL client members and discuss
summarized data.
7. Provide ETA for findings concerning DEA Feb. 15
cost analysis.
8. Summarize and analyze data and meet DEA March 5
with FWL client members and present
data.
9. Write final report and submit to FWL. DEA March 25, 2012

4. Dr. David Spanton, received his doctoral degree from UCLA school of education in
Instructional Design and Program Evaluations, MS from Harvard school of social science
in Psychology, and BS from Boise State University school of education in Secondary
Science. He will lead the team in conducting the evaluation of FWL. His experience in
this field includes evaluation and program planning for Arizona State University,
Tennessee, and Florida State University. He has also conducted evaluations at the state
public education level for: Clark County School District, LA school district, Wambat
school district and Martinville school district. His resume includes conducting
evaluations for companies such as Davis Ed Tech services and J&J Educational Program
Specialist.
Dr. Mary Larson, received her doctoral degree from University of Utah school of
education in Curriculum Development & Evaluation, MS from San Diego State
University school of education in Instructional Design, and BS form Texas A&M school
of education in Agricultural Science. Her resume includes program evaluations of Dixie
State College and Mesa Community College. She has also conducted evaluations for a
private academy Mesa Verde Fine Arts Academy. She was CEO of Special Instruction
Development, a company that specialized in alternative source of instruction for special
needs learners in public education.
The evaluation team will also include two technology support staff and two
graduate assistances form UCLA.
Budget
The proposed budget for the evaluation of Far West Laboratory is $38,070. A
breakdown of the proposed budget and payment schedule are shown on the last page.

5. Proposed Budget and Payment Schedule
Personnel
Professional salaries
Dr. Spanton: 25 days @ $500/day $12,500
Dr. Jones 20 days @ $350/day $7,000
Tech Support 30 days @ $200/day x2 $12,000
Support Staff 16 days @ $120/day x2 $1,920
Total Personnel: $33,420
Travel and per Diem
3 2-day round trip: Denver to Sacramento $1,200
Estimated misc. millage 600 miles @$0.30 per mile $180
3 visits at an estimated travel per Diem of $125 per visit $450
Total Travel: $1,830
Communications
Telephone (est. average of $110 per month for 7 months) $770
Postage $80
Total Communications: $1,570
Supplies, Materials and Photocopies
Supplies and photocopies $500
Materials $750
Total Supplies, materials and photocopies $1,250
Total Budget $38,070